Bangalore District Court
Mrs. Thabitha David vs M/S. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd on 4 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH-75)
Dated this 4th Day of January 2022
PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G. (B.A. LL.B.,)
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 25150/2015
PLAINTIFF: Mrs. Thabitha David,
W/o. Mr. Bharath Hiremath,
Aged about 34 years
R/at: DS-78, D2 Block,
Ittina Neela Apartments,
Sampangi Naar,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore - 560 100.
REP BY: SRIVATSA ASSOCIATES.
V/s
DEFENDANTS: 1 M/s. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act 1 of 1956 having its
registered office at
# 165/2, 6th floor,
Kalyani Magnum,
Doraisani palya,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore- 560 076
Rep by its Managing Director.
2
OS.25150/2015
2 Sri. Sri Manchala,
Father's name not known to plaintiff
Aged about 47 years,
President and Chief Officer of
defendant No.1
3 Sri. Santhosh Sagar,
Father's name not known to plaintiff
Aged about 45 years,
Vice President of defendant No.1
4 Dr. A.L.Rao,
Father's name not known to plaintiff
Aged about 65 years,
Chief Mentor & Head-IT Services of
defendant No.1
Defendants 2 to 4 are gainfully
employed at M/s. Trianz Holdings
Pvt. Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act 1 of 1956 having its
registered office at
# 165/2, 6th floor,
Kalyani Magnum,
Doraisani palya,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore- 560 076
Rep By Sri. S.P.Advocate.
Date of Institution of the suit 06/02/2015
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for MONEY SUIT
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of the 11/04/2017
3
OS.25150/2015
Evidence.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 04/01/2022
Year/s Month/ Day/s
Total duration
s
06 10 29
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed the instant suit directing defendant No.1 to pay arrears of salary of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to withdraw the reasons given in the communication dated: 26.11.2013 for accepting resignation/terminating her employment as "being related to integrity issues"and costs.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. 1st defendant the Trianz Holdings Pvt Ltd., is a private company doing the business of IT services. 2 nd defendant is the President and Chief Officer; 3 rd defendant is the Vice-President and 4th defendant is the Chief Mentor and Head of IT services of 1 st defendant-company. By accepting offer letter dated: 17.10.2011 issued by 1 st 4 OS.25150/2015 defendant, plaintiff joined the 1 st defendant-company as Senior Manager-Staffing(IT Services) at Bengaluru. 1 st defendant was agreed to pay annual salary of Rs.24,00,000/-, joining bonus of Rs. 1,00,000/- and deferred bonus of Rs.2.6 lakhs in 2 installments at intervals of 6 months after plaintiff joining 1 st defendant company.
The said offer was valid upto 15.01.2012. After expiry of the validity, it was extended on 20.02.2012. Plaintiff contends that as per communication dated: 22.01.2013 her annual salary was restructured at Rs.26,60,000/-. Plaintiff contends that after she joined 1 st company she discharged her duties honestly to the best of her ability. In the monthly news letter of 1 st defendant in the month of July-2013, her talent, service and contribution to the 1 st defendant was appreciated. She contends that on 30.10.2013, she was unexpectedly directed to meet defendants 2,3 and 4. When she met them in the board room, they forced her to submit resignation immediately. Defendants 2 to 4 not allowed her to talk to her family members to take decision. 4 th defendant gave a blank 5 OS.25150/2015 paper to her and told her to write resignation letter. Plaintiff contends that she had 3 children. Defendants 2 to 4 threatened her by making a mention of her 3 children. Succumbing to the coercion and threats of defendants 2 to 4, she written resignation letter and gave to them. Plaintiff contends that before taking resignation by putting threats and coercion on her, defendants 2 to 4 told that she indulged in malpractice in recruitment. Plaintiff contends that the allegation of malpractice made against her is false. She contends that on 31.10.2013 it was informed to her that her salary was withheld. She contends that in view of defendants 2 to 4 obtained her resignation by threatening her and also by coercion and inducement, as per terms of the contract, she is entitled for 2 months salary of Rs.4,00,000/-. She contends that after she came to know about defendants withheld her salary she sent several mails to defendants. On 26.11.2013 defendants sent a letter stating that her resignation was accepted. In the said letter, defendants have made false allegations against her. On 1.12.2013, she addressed a letter to defendants 2 to 4 6 OS.25150/2015 and requested them defendants to give a clean exit to her from 1st defendant company by issuing relieving letter along with experience certificate. On 7.1.2014 1 st defendant issued relieving letter with experience certificate. Plaintiff contends that after she got experience certificate from 1 st defendant, she applied for employment at Accenture and Amazon Development Centre. They issued offer letters of employment to her on 8.11.2013 and 16.1.2014. The Amazon Development Centre has sent a communication dated: 31.1.2014 withdrawing the offer letter given to her by stating that on background check, it was found major discrepancies in the information provided by her. The Accenture Company also sent a communication dated:
7.2.2014 stating that offer letter given by it is withdrawn in view of her background is not satisfactory. Plaintiff contends that when she applied for employment at Accenture and Amazon Development center, they checked her background from 1st defendant-company. In view of 1 st defendant-company has made allegations of integrity against her, The Amazon and Accenture withdrew the offer 7 OS.25150/2015 letters of employment issued by them. Plaintiff contends that in view of negative feed-back given by 1 st defendant, she did not get job in the said two companies. Therefore, she put to mental agony and hardship. Plaintiff contends that on 1.9.2013 she issued legal notice to defendants.
Defendants received the said notice without demur. She also issued notice dated: 29.9.2014 calling upon the defendants to give explanation regarding allegations made by them against her in the letter of acceptance of resignation and also regarding negative feedback given to Accenture and Amazon. Defendants did not give reply to the said notices. Plaintiff contends that in view of defendants taken her resignation by putting threats and coercion, she is entitle for 2 months salary of Rs.4,00,000/-. She contends that the allegation made against her in the communication dated:"26.11.2013 terminating her employment is "being related to integrity issues" is false and defendants are liable to withdraw the said allegations. Therefore, mandatory injunction is to issued to defendants to withdraw the said allegations made 8 OS.25150/2015 against her. On these and other grounds stated in the plaint, plaintiff prays to decree the suit and to grant the relief of mandatory injunction and direct the defendants to pay two months salary of Rs.4,00,000/- to her.
3. 1st defendant filed written statement by admitting that it is registered IT company; in pursuant to the application made by the plaintiff for employment an offer letter dated: 17.10.2011 was issued to her offering the post of Senior Manager Staffing( IT Services) and offered to pay salary/compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- per annum, bonus of Rs. 1,00,000/- and default bonus of Rs. 2,60,000/- in 2 installments at intervals of 6 months after she joined the company and by accepting the said offer plaintiff joined the company and discharged her duties as Senior Manager Staffing( IT Services). 1 st defendant denied that defendants 2 to 4 forcibly and by coercion obtained resignation from plaintiff. 1 st defendant contends that on 30.10.2013 plaintiff submitted an unconditional resignation letter requesting the 1st defendant to accept it forthwith and to relieve her from services. 1st defendant contends that 9 OS.25150/2015 after receipt of resignation letter dated: 30.10.2013, the Management of 1st defendant enquired regarding background and other related issues before accepting it. There were certain allegations pertaining to the irregularities involving financial and vendor management, harassment of Junior employees by senior team members and inaction on the part of plaintiff to escalate the said matter and in addition, there was also allegation of violation of terms of employment by the plaintiff. 1 st defendant contends that it has conducted investigation regarding above allegations. It contends that having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, though it was of the opinion that detailed investigation is required it has decided not to pursue further investigation and had given quietus to the matter and accepted resignation of the plaintiff post facto with effect from 30.10.2013. Her resignation was accepted without any precondition. After accepting the resignation, relieving letter and experience certificate were also given to the plaintiff. 1 st defendant contends that as per clause-14 of the terms of employment, plaintiff has to 10 OS.25150/2015 give 2 months prior notice before submitting resignation otherwise she has to pay two months salary. 1 st defendant contends that in view of plaintiff submitted resignation without giving prior notice, she is liable to pay 2 months salary to 1st defendant, but it has been waived off by it as a gesture of goodwill. 1st defendant contends that it has accepted resignation submitted by the plaintiff unconditionally and relieved her without stigma. After accepting resignation , plaintiff's claim was settled fully. Therefore, 1st defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. 1st defendant contends that after the plaintiff was relieved from the services, it has no knowledge regarding in which companies she filed applications for employment. 1st defendant contends that it has not given any negative feedback to any of the companies about the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that in view of 1st defendant given negative feedback against her, she did not get job in Accenture and Amazon is false. 1 st defendant contends that in the communication letter dated:
26.11.2013, it has not made allegation relating to integrity 11 OS.25150/2015 issue of plaintiff. Therefore, the question of withdrawing the alleged allegations relating to integrity issues would not arise. 1st defendant contends that despite the plaintiff voluntarily submitted resignation and as per her request, her resignation letter was accepted without any condition and she has been relieved without stigma by settling her accounts, plaintiff filed the instant suit by making false allegations against defendants. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit on the basis of imagination, surmises and conjunctions. There is no real cause of action to file the suit.
1st defendant contends that as alleged by plaintiff if the resignation was obtained by putting her in duress she could have withdraw the said resignation letter. Plaintiff did not withdraw the said resignation letter. On the other hand, she requested to accept it and relieve her from services along with letter of experience certificate. As per her request, relieving letter dated: 7.1.2014 with experience certificate was issued. In the relieving letter and experience certificate, no allegation has been made against plaintiff. Thus, absolutely, there is no cause of action to file the 12 OS.25150/2015 instant suit. 1st defendant contends that the cause of action one alleged in the plaint is false, imaginary and after thought. 1st defendant contends that in view of plaintiffs resignation was accepted, the jural relationship of employer and employee come to an end on 30.10.2013. Therefore, there is no privity between plaintiff and 1 st defendant to file the instant suit. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, 1st defendant contends that the instant suit is not maintainable in law and the reliefs sought are unknown to law. On these and other grounds 1 st defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
4. Defendants 2 to 4 adopted the written statement of 1st defendant.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings on 01/10/2016 the then presiding officer formulated the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 has to pay arrears of her salary of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum?13
OS.25150/2015
2. Whether plaintiff proves that the reasons given in communication dated: 26.11.2013 alleged regarding her termination of employment is related to integrity issues and it is to be withdrawn by the defendants?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants have caused a defame to the plaintiff's reputation as pleaded in the plaint?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that, she is entitled for a relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed?
5. What order or decree?
6. On 6.11.2021 the following additional issue was framed:
Whether plaintiff proves that on
30.10.2013 defendants 2 to 4 took her
resignation forcibly?
7. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. 1 st defendant 14 OS.25150/2015 examined its Manager(HR) by name Vittal Habib as DW1 and produced documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6.
7. Heard the arguments on both side. Counsel for plaintiff in addition to submitting oral arguments, submitted notes of arguments with rulings.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.2: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.3: would not survive for consideration.
ISSUE NO.4: would not survive for consideration.
Addl.Issue : In the negative.
Issue No.5: As per the final order .
UNDISPUTED FACTS
9. In the instant case, there is no dispute that 1 st defendant is a IT company. By accepting Ex.P. 1 offer letter dated: 17.10.2011 plaintiff joined 1 st defendant company and discharged her duties as Senior Manager Staffing( IT Services). Ex.P. 2 is the terms and conditions 15 OS.25150/2015 of employment. 1st defendant agreed to pay salary of Rs. 24,00,000/- per annum, a joining bonus of Rs.1,00,000/- and deferred bonus of Rs. 2.6 lakhs in 2 installments at intervals of 6 months after the plaintiff joining the company. 1st defendant accepted Ex.D. 1 letter of resignation with effect from 30.10.2013.
DISPUTED FACTS
10. Plaintiff contends that on 30.10.2013, defendants 2 to 4 threatened her by making a mention about her 3 children and forcibly obtained Ex.D. 1 resignation letter. 1st defendant denied the said contention. 1st defendant contends that plaintiff voluntarily submitted Ex.D. 1 resignation letter with a request to accept it forthwith.
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL
11. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has strenuously contended that defendants 2 to 4 against whom, the plaintiff has made allegations have not entered into witness box. DW.1 has no personal knowledge regarding 16 OS.25150/2015 what transpired on 30.10.2013. Therefore, due to want of knowledge, the evidence of DW.1 is of no assistance to defendants to prove that plaintiff has voluntarily submitted Ex.D. 1 resignation letter. He submits that in view of defendants 2 to 4 have not filed written statement and not entered into witness box, adverse inference is to be drawn against them. He submits that in the cross- examination of PW.1, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve her testimony. When such is the case, in the absence of rebuttal evidence by the competent witness from defendants the facts stated by PW.1 would remained unchallenged and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony on oath that defendants 2 to 4 by putting threats and coercion obtained Ex.D1 resignation from her. In support of his arguments, the Counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. (2021) 2 SCC 718(Iqbal Basith and others) 17 OS.25150/2015
2. (1999) 3 SCC 457( Iswar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel Vs Harihar Behera and another ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT 'S COUNSEL
12. The Ld. Counsel for the defendants has strenuously contended that plaintiff is an well educated lady. She stated that on 30.10.2013 defendants relieved her from office. After she was relieved, she was not under the control of defendants. As stated by plaintiff if she had not submitted Ex.D. 1 resignation letter voluntarily and it was taken by putting her in duress she could have written letter or send mail to 1 st defendant informing that she has not submitted resignation voluntarily therefore, it cannot be accepted. The Ld. Counsel for the defendants submits that in Ex.P. 7 explanation plaintiff requested the 1 st defendant to give clean exit to her from 1 st defendant company along with relieving letter and experience certificate. He submits that in Ex.P. 7 plaintiff has not stated that her resignation letter was taken by putting her in duress. 10 months 18 OS.25150/2015 after submitting resignation in Ex.P. 17 legal notice dated: 1.09.2014 for the first time plaintiff has stated that defendants 2 to 4 by putting her in duress obtained Ex.D. 1 resignation letter. He submits that admittedly as per Ex.D. 2 the full and final claim of plaintiff was settled. Plaintiff who requested the 1st defendant to give clean exit to her by accepting resignation and also received money stated in Ex.D. 2 as full and final settlement is estopped from contending that she has not given Ex.D. 1 resignation letter voluntarily and it was obtained by putting threats on her. He submits that the said contention is an afterthought to file the instant suit for unlawful gain. He submits that a private contract of employment is a terminable contract. After termination of contract by either party there is no privity between employer and employee. In view of plaintiff's resignation is accepted and she was relieved without any stigma there is no cause of action to file the suit. Therefore, the instant suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not 19 OS.25150/2015 entitle for any of the reliefs prayed for. In support of his arguments, he place reliance on the following judgments:
1. 2015 LLR 156(Kar.HC) Writ Petition No. 58786/2013( M. Babu Vs Management of Presscom Products.
2. 2012(2) LLN 647(Bom){( Suit No.188/1995) (Shaikh Abdul Rahim Nabi Vs The Anjuman-
I-Islam & Others)}
3. AIR 2003 SC 2719{(Civil Appeal No.3506/2003) (North Zone Centre & Anr.
Vs Vedapathi Dinesh Kumar)}
4. (2014) 10 SCC 473(MANU/SC/0834/2014{ Civil Appeal No.4226/2012( Anvar P.V Vrs P.K. Basheer )}
5. (2020) 7 SCC 1 ( Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors)
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Divisional Bench judgment in (United bAnk of India Vs Naresh Kumar & Others)
7. AIR 2002 Sc 23( Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I of Medical Sciences and Others)
8. AIR 2003 SC 1789( Mathew P. Thomas Vs Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation & Ors) 20 OS.25150/2015
9. RFA NO.174/2007 ( Kingston Computers I Private Ltd., Vs State Bank of Travancore)
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgment in T. Arivandam Vs T.V.Satyapal & Anr.)
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India judgment in R.D.Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India judgment in P.D.Gupta Vs Ram Murti & Anr.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgment in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and residents & Others Vs Union of India & Others
14. Civil Appeal No.870/2011 (Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs C.P.Joshi & Others
15. Civil Appeal No. 4243-4244/2004 (State Bank of India Vs S.N.Goyal)
16. (2014) 11 SCC 639( World Sport Group(Mauritius) Ltd., Vs MSM Satellite (Singapore) PTE Ltd.,
17. AIR 2014 SC 3004( State of Punjab & Ors Vs Dhanji Singh Sandhu) .
13. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 :- Plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 in her examination in chief, has 21 OS.25150/2015 reiterated and reaffirmed the plaint averments. Ex.D. 1 resignation letter is dated: 30.10.2013. In para No.8 of the examination-in-chief , plaintiff has stated that on 30.10.2013 she got information that her salary was withheld and when she enquired the Finance Department of 1st defendant-company the concerned told her that in view of she submitted resignation, her salary was withheld. She stated that she repeatedly requested the concerned of the Finance Department to release her salary and also told that she had no intention to submit resignation and it was obtained by force. Further in the same para PW.1 has stated that in view of defendants obtained her resignation by putting her in duress she is entitled for 2 months salary as per clause-14 of Ex.P. 2 terms of employment. PW.1 in para No.10 of her examination-in-chief has stated that on 26.11.2013 she received Ex.P. 6 communication through mail regarding acceptance of resignation. She stated that after receipt of Ex.P. 6, letter of acceptance of resignation, she addressed 22 OS.25150/2015 Ex.P. 7 letter dated: 1.12.2013 to the 2 nd defendant. In Ex.P. 7, plaintiff has given explanation regarding certain irregularities mentioned in Ex.P. 6 letter. In Ex.P. 7 plaintiff has not stated that defendants 2 to 4 by putting threats and by coercion obtained Ex.D. 1 resignation letter. On the other hand, she stated that by accepting her explanation given in Ex.P. 7, relieving letter be issued to her along with experience certificate for clean exit.
14. Ex.P. 5 is the print-outs of mails alleged to have been sent by plaintiff to defendants. PW.1 in the cross- examination at page No.13 has stated that by using her personal Lenovo lap-top she sent Ex.P. 5 mails to defendants. She stated that she do not know on which day, she took Ex.P. 5 print-out of the e-mails. She stated that she do not remember which printer she used to take Ex.P. 5 printout. Further she stated that she has not taken Ex.P. 5 printout directly from the original file of mails. She stated that she downloaded the said mails, created another file and then she took Ex.P. 5 printout. 23
OS.25150/2015 Along with Ex.P. 5 plaintiff has not filed certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act . In view of plaintiff not complied mandatory requirements of section 65 B of Evidence Act, the court cannot countenance Ex.P. 5 the printout of E- mails.
15. PW.1 has stated that after 1st defendant accepted resignation , she applied for employment at Accenture and Amazon Development Center. They initially issued offer letters to her, thereafter they withdrew them by stating that her background reference is not satisfactory. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P. 10 offer letter dated: 18.11.2013 issued by Accenture, Ex.P. 11 an offer letter dated: 16.01.2014 issued by Amazon Development Center, Ex.P. 12 letter dated: 13.1.2014 issued on behalf of Amazon Development Center for with- drawal of Ex.P. 11 offer letter and Ex.P. 13 letter dated:
7.2.2014 regarding withdrawal of Ex.P. 10 offer letter by Accenture. PW.1 has stated that after Accenture and Amazon Development Center withdrawn the offer letters 24 OS.25150/2015 by issuing Ex.P. 12 and 13, letters, she issued Ex.P. 17 legal notice dated: 1.9.2014 to defendants 2 to 4. In Ex.P. 17 legal notice in para No.4 for the first time, plaintiff has stated that on 30.10.2013 defendants 2 to 5 by putting threats and coercion forcibly took Ex.D. 1 resignation letter. Thus, from the material on record, would show that 11 months after Ex.D. 1 resignation letter for the first time, plaintiff has stated that defendants 2 to 4 by putting threats and by coercion, took Ex.D. 1 resignation letter.
16. Plaintiff is not a lay-woman. She is well educated lady. Before joining the 1 st defendant, she worked in Accenture. She is having an experience of working as a Senior Manager in reputed IT companies. As stated by PW.1, on 30.10.2013, if defendants 2 to 4 threatened her by making a mention of her 3 children and coerced her to submit Ex.D. 1 resignation letter, after she was relieved from the office of the 1st defendant and reached her house, she could have written a letter or sent 25 OS.25150/2015 mail to the 1st defendant stating that she has not submitted resignation letter voluntarily and it was taken by putting her in duress, therefore, the said resignation letter is illegal and it cannot be accepted. For the reasons best known plaintiff did not do so. On the other hand, she written Ex.P. 7 letter on 1.12.2013 to the 2 nd defendant giving explanation to the alleged irregularities mentioned in Ex.P. 6 letter of acceptance and requested 2nd defendant to issue relieving letter with experience certificate. PW.1 in the cross-examination has admitted that after accepting Ex.D. 1 resignation letter, defendants have settled her payment. Ex.D. 2 is the details of full and final settlement of the plaintiff after acceptance of resignation. As contended by plaintiff if she not submitted resignation letter voluntarily, she could have not accepted the full and final settlement.
17. Section 19 of Indian contract Act deals regarding voidability of agreements made without free consent. As per the said section, if the agreement is 26 OS.25150/2015 made without free consent ie., by duress or coercion, option is given to the party whose consent was obtained without free consent to seek for setting aside the said contract or to accept it. In the instant case, from the material on record would show that plaintiff by accepting Ex.D. 1 resignation, requested the 1st defendant to issue relieving letter for clean exit along with experience certificate and also received money stated in Ex.D. 2 as full and final settlement. In view of plaintiff did not opt for questioning the legality of Ex.D. 1 resignation letter, as per section of 19 of Contract Act, it is binding on her.
18. I went through the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. In the said judgments,it has been held that if the defendant not entered into witness box to refute the allegations made against him or to support his pleadings, the court has to draw an adverse inference. There is no quarrel regarding ratio laid down in the above cited judgments regarding drawing adverse inference against defendant who did not enter into witness box to 27 OS.25150/2015 deny the allegations made against him and to state the averments made by him in the written statement. Drawing of adverse inference would not displace the plaintiff from proving his case. It is settled principle of law that plaintiff has to prove his/her case by leading cogent evidence and the weakness of the defendant would not come to the rescue of plaintiff to prove his/her case. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, DW.1 has no personal knowledge regarding what transpired between plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 on 30.10.2013. Therefore, his evidence regarding information alleged to have been collected from defendants 2 to 4 or other employees of 1st defendant is hearsay evidence and it is of no assistance to defendants. But, defendants can rely upon the documents produced by the plaintiff and the facts stated by her in the evidence to substantiate their contention. At the cost of repetition, I say that after submission of Ex.D. 1 letter of resignation plaintiff has not written any letter or sent 28 OS.25150/2015 mail to defendants stating that she has not submitted resignation letter voluntarily, therefore, it cannot be considered. On the other hand, placing reliance on the resignation letter, she requested the defendants to issue relieving letter along with experience certificate. From this, it is clear that plaintiff admitted Ex.D. 1 resignation letter. After plaintiff admitting Ex.D. 1 resignation letter and requesting the defendant to issue relieving letter with experience,she is estopped from questioning the legality of the said letter of resignation by contending that it was obtained by putting threats on her and by coercion. In view of the above, I hold that on threadbare and meticulous evaluation of the material on record would show that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to accept the contention of the plaintiff that defendants obtained Ex.D. 1 resignation letter by putting threats and coercion.. Accordingly, I answer Additional Issue in the Negative.
29
OS.25150/2015
19. ISSUE NO.1: In the instant case, there is no dispute that as per clause-14 of ex.P. 2 terms and conditions of employment, plaintiff and the 1st defendant have right to terminate the contract of employment by giving 2 months prior notice without assigning any reason for termination. While answering additional Issue, I have held that plaintiff failed to prove that defendants obtained Ex.D. 1 letter of resignation by putting her in duress. In view of my said findings, plaintiff is not entitled to press into service clause-14 of Ex.P. 2 terms and conditions of employment to claim 2 months salary. For the sake of arguments, even it is admitted that defendants 2 to 4 obtained Ex.D. 1 resignation letter by putting the plaintiff in duress, plaintiff had an opportunity to inform the 1 st defendant that she not submitted Ex.D.1 resignation letter voluntarily therefore, it cannot be accepted. Plaintiff did not do so. On the other hand, she requested 1st defendant to accept the resignation letter without any condition and to give clean exit to her by issuing relieving 30 OS.25150/2015 letter and experience certificate. Therefore, plaintiff by addressing Ex.P. 7 letter/explanation to the 1st defendant given up of her right of claiming 2 months salary. Plaintiff in Ex.P. 17 and Ex.P. 21 notice also not called upon the defendants to pay 2 months salary. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the Ldearned counsel for defendants in view of plaintiff accepted Ex.D.2, the full and final settlement claim she is not entitled to claim two months salary. In view of the above, and in view of my findings on additional issue in the Negative I hold that plaintiff is not entitle for the recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- ie., two months salary from defendants. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the Negative.
20. ISSUE NO.2: Plaintiff contends that in Ex.P. 6 letter dated: 26.11.2013, defendant accepted the resignation by making false allegations against her relating to integrity issue therefore, defendants are to be directed to withdraw those allegations. 31
OS.25150/2015
21. Admittedly, after receipt of Ex.P.6 communication plaintiff addressed Ex.P. 7 letter to 2 nd defendant. In the said letter, she requested defendants to give a clear exit to her by issuing relieving letter and experience certificate. As requested by plaintiff, defendants issued Ex.D. 8 relieving letter along with Ex.D. 9 experience certificate. Ex.D. 8 is the last and final communication made by defendants in respect of accepting Ex.D. 1 resignation of the plaintiff. In Ex.P. 8 defendants have not made any allegations against plaintiff. Defendants contend that after receipt of Ex.D. 1 resignation letter, 1st defendant had enquired into the background related issues. Defendants contend that there were certain allegations pertaining to irregularities involving financial and vendor management, harassment of junior employees by Senior Team members and inaction on the part of plaintiff to escalate the said issues and also regarding violation of terms of employment by plaintiff by working as faculty in the business 32 OS.25150/2015 management Institute in Bengaluru. Defendants contend that though 1st defendant commenced the initial investigation, later on it has decided not to persue investigation to give quietest to the matter. Therefore, as requested by plaintiff Ex.P. 8 relieving letter was issued along with Ex.P. 9 experience certificate. From Ex.P. 8 and 9 it is clear that defendants accepted the resignation of plaintiff unconditionally and without any stigma. After issuance of Ex.P. 7 and 8, Ex.P. 6 letter became ineffective.
22. In Ex.P. 6 letter, defendants have stated that they came to know about certain irregularities and also regarding plaintiff working as faculty in the business management Institute in Bengaluru without the consent of 1st defendant and it amounts to violation of terms of employment. Hence, 1st defendant decided to hold an independent investigation. After receipt of Ex.P. 6 plaintiff has given Ex.P. 7 explanation. In Ex.P. 7 explanation, plaintiff has stated that the irregularities 33 OS.25150/2015 mentioned in Ex.P. 6 are vague. She admitted giving guest lecture at business management institute in Bengaluru contends that she did the same without any remuneration . Having regard to the explanation given by plaintiff in Ex.P. 7 letter, it cannot be said that the irregularities alleged in Ex.P. 6 are baseless. According to the 1st defendant, it came to know about the alleged irregularities. 1st defendant an employer, if came to know about any irregularities by its employee is having right to conduct investigation or to terminate the service of that employee. From the contention taken by the 1 st defendant would show that though initially it has started investigation regarding the alleged irregularities of plaintiff later on it has decided not to hold investigation and to give clear exit to the plaintiff as requested by her in Ex.P. 7 letter. Therefore, in view of 1 st defendant issued Ex.P. 8 relieving letter with Ex.P. 9 experience certificate accepting Ex.D. 1 resignation with effect from 30.10.2013 without any stigma, there is no cause of 34 OS.25150/2015 action to file a suit for mandatory injunction for expunging or deletion of alleged irregularities mentioned in Ex.P. 6 letter. In addition to that in Ex.P. 6 letter it is not stated that plaintiff did the above alleged irregularities and violated the terms of employment. What is stated in the said letter is that 1 st defendant came to know about the alleged irregularities and therefore, it will hold independent investigation. Therefore, if we give face value to the contents of Ex.P. 6 letter, it is clear that in the said letter 1 st defendant has not given decision or finding that plaintiff did not said irregularities. What is stated, in Ex.P. 6 letter is that 1 st defendant came to know about the alleged irregularities. Therefore, the recitals of Ex.P. 6 letter would not support the contention of the plaintiff that 1st defendant accepted her resignation on the issue of integrity. In view of the above and in view of defendants issued Ex.P. 8 relieving letter and Ex.P. 9 experience letter by accepting resignation of the plaintiff without any condition and 35 OS.25150/2015 without any stigma, plaintiff is not entitle for the relief of mandatory injunction to delete "being related integrity issues" which words are not there in the said letter. In view of the above, I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
23. ISSUE NO.3 AND 4:- These 2 issues are in respect of reliefs 3 and 4. After submitting arguments on merit, plaintiff has filed memo stating that she will not press reliefs 3 and 4. Therefore, the suit in respect of reliefs 3 and 4 was dismissed on 10.12.2021. In view of plaintiff not pressed the suit in respect of reliefs 3 and 4, Issues 3 and 4 would not survive for consideration. Accordingly I answer issues 3 and 4 as would not survive for consideration.
24. ISSUE NO.5: In view of reasons & findings on the above issues, I pass the following:
ORDER Plaintiff's suit is dismissed.36
OS.25150/2015 No order as to costs.
****** (Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of January 2022) (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1 Mrs. Thabitha David LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Offer letter dt: 17.10.2021
Ex.P.2 E-mail of terms & conditions
Ex.P.3
Ex.P. 3(a) Annexure-1(compensation structure)
Ex.P.4 News letter
Ex.P.5 Copy of e-mail track
Ex.P.6 Information by e-mail dated:26.11.2013
Ex.P. 7 Letter dated: 0.12.2013
Ex.P. 8 Relieving letter dated: 7.1.2014
Ex.P. 9 Experience certificate
Ex.P. 10 Offer letter dated: 8.11.2013 issued by
Accenture company
Ex.P. 11 Offer letter dated: 16.01.2014 issued by
37
OS.25150/2015
Amazon Development Center.
Ex.P. 12 Revoking letter dated: 31.01.2014 issued
by Amazon Development Center
Ex.P. 13 Revoking letter dated: 07.02.2014 issued
by Accenture company
Ex.P. 14 Copy of Background verification
Ex.P. 15 Copy of invoice dated: 10.02.2014
Ex.P. 16 Bank statement
Ex.P. 17 Legal notice dt: 01.09.2013
Ex.P. 18 to 20 3 postal acknowledgments
Ex.P. 21 Legal notice dated: 3.11.2014
Ex.P. 22 Reply dated: 09.10.2014
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
DEFENDANT:
DW1 Mr. Vittal Habib
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 Resignation letter dated:30/10/2013
given by plaintiff .
Ex.D.2 Details of full and final settlement of
employees
Ex.D.3 Authorisation letter
(MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.)
LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75)